The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 3 November 1989,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 181/1984 submitted
to the Committee by Elcida Arévalo Perez under the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on behalf of her disappeared
sons Alfredo Rafael and Samuel Humberto Sanjuán Arévalo.

Having, taken into account all written information made available to it by
the author of the communication and by the State party,

Adopts the following:

Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol

1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 17 September 1984 and
subsequent correspondence) is Elcida Arévalo Pérez, a Colombian national residing
in Colombia, writing on behalf of her sons, Alfredo Rafael and Samuel Humberto
Sanjuán Arévalo, who disappeared in Colombia on 8 March 1982.

2.1 The author states that Alfredo Rafael (born on 7 October 19471, a student
of engineering at the District University of Bogota, left the family home in
Bogota, on 8 March 1982 at 8 a. m., with the intention to go to the university
and that Samuel Humberto (born on 25 March 19591, a student of anthropology
at the National University of Colombia, left their home on the same day at 3
p. m. for the purpose of attending to a job offer. They did not return and their
whereabouts has been unknown ever since. The author further states that on the
same day she was told by neighbours that their home had been watched by armed
individuals carrying walkie-talkies, that these men had inquired about the activities
of the Sanjuán family and that they had identified themselves as agents of the
"F2" (a section of the Colombian police forces).

2.2 On 10 March 1982 the author reported the disappearance of her sons to the
local police and to the Section of Disappeared Persons of the "F2".
She also regularly visited the morgues, Between June and September 1982 the
case of her sons was reported to the assistant prosecutor of the Police, to
the Armed Forces, to the Attorney General's office and to the Administrative
Department of Security "DAS". Investigations were carried out by most
of these authorities for some weeks, but without results. The author also mentions
several letters written to the President of the Republic and states that, at
the behest of his Office, a Judge 'of a criminal court was appointed in February
1983 to initiate the appropriate investigation. At the time of writing, she
stated that these proceedings were still pending, due to frequent changes of
judges.

2.3 The author claims that she could never obtain from the authorities any
official information about her sons' whereabouts. However, in a letter dated
17 August 1982 from the alleged victims' father addressed to State Minister
Rodrigo Escobar Navia (with copies sent to the President of Colombia, Minister
of Justice and Attorney General), submitted to the Human Rights Committee as
part of communication No. 18111984, it is stated that the parents of Alfredo
Rafael and Samuel Humberto Sanjuán Arévalo received indications in August 1982
from the Chief of the Administrative Department of Security, "DAS",
that their sons had been arrested by agents of the "F2" and that on
13 August 1982 in the course of an interview with the National Director of the
"F2", it was intimated that they would soon reappear ("confien
en Dios que prontico apareceran y ester! tranquilos").

2.4 The author claims that articles 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated.

2.5 She indicates that the case of her sons is not being examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement.

3. Having concluded that the author of the communication was justified in acting
on behalf of the alleged victims, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee
decided on 17 October 1984 to transmit the communication under rule 91 of the
rules of procedure to the State party concerned, requesting information and
observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication.
The Working Group also requested the State party to forward copies of any official
inquiries made in connection with the reported disappearance of Alfredo Rafael
and Samuel Humberto Sanjuán Arévalo.

4. The deadline for the State party's submission under rule 91 of the Committee's
rules of procedure expired on 20 January 1985. No rule 91 submission was received
from the State party.

5.1 With regard to article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee
noted that the author's statement, that the case of her sons was not being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, remained
uncontested.

5.2 With regard to article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, the
Committee was unable to conclude, on the basis of the information before it,
that there were available remedies in the circumstances of the present case
which could or should have been pursued.

6. On 11 July 1985 the Human Rights Committee therefore decided that the communication
was admissible. The State party was further requested to forward copies of any
official inquiries made in connection with the reported disappearance of Alfredo
Rafael and Samuel Humberto Sanjuán Arévalo.

7.1 In its submissions under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol,
dated 11 August 1986, 21 January and 8 July 1987, 20 October 1986 and 27 January
1989, the State party forwarded the Committee copies of the relevant police
reports on the on-going investigations into the disappearance of the Sanjuán
brothers.

7.2 A report from the Office of the Attorney-General of Colombia (Procuraduriá
General), dated 19 June 1986, indicates that pursuant to an order of the Attorney-General
of Colombia, dated 21 May 1986, the Colombian lawyer Martha Julieta Tovar Cardona
was entrusted with a general review of the records of the Colombian Police Department
aimed at determining whether tile cases of 10 disappeared persons and 2 deceased
persons had been properly investigated.

7.3 The report reflects that on 19 June 1986 Ms. Tovar Cardona studied the
records of the investigations started by the Colombian Police on 8 March 1983
concerning the suspected crime of kidnapping of 12 persons, including the Sanjuán
brothers. In her report Ms. Tovar Cardona notes that there were indictments
against 18 police officials. She also notes the appointment of 2 judge in charge
of the investigations into the suspected crime of kidnapping and that in the
course of the police investigations the records of prior discoveries of corpses,
on 7 and 27 June 1982, 11 and 19 July 1982, 28 September 1982, 21 November 1982,
and 15 February 1983 had been examined. None of the bodies had been identified.

7.4 The next 16 pages of the 18-page report consist mainly of listings of the
names of some 193 persons interrogated (including the namer of police officials
suspected of involvement in the disappearances), with an indication of the date
and place of deposition. There is no indication, however, as to the contents
of any of the depositions or as to their relevance to tire disappearance of
the Sanjuán brothers. Except for declarations made by Elcida Mariá Arévalo Pérez
and Yolanda Sanjuán Arévalo on 11 March 1983, it cannot be seen which, if any,
of the other declarations and depositions listed relate to their cases. There
is reference, however, to inquiries which had been made at prisons and police
stations to ascertain that the Sanjuán brothers were not being detained there.
Other references concern the appointment of court officials to evaluate the
evidence and the assignment of persons for on-site inspections. There is no
indication of the outcome.

7.5 Ms. Tovar Cardona observes that the Colombian Police has carried out very
considerable investigations into the alleged disappearances and killings. The
investigations are said to have continued until the end of May 1986. It cannot
be seen whether the indictments against the various police officers have led
to any further actions against them.

7.6 Ms. Tovar Cardona concludes her report by making the following observations:
"The original records, numbered 1 to 7 inclusive were examined and, in
conformity with the instruction given verbally by the attorney assigned to the
police, particular importance was attached to determining by means of dates
of reception and transmittal, the various activities undertaken in the preliminary
proceedings both in ordinary jurisdiction and in the military criminal justice
system as well as the various formalities carried out by the departments responsible
for acting on the files. In addition to this, because of their quantity and
since they were not absolutely germane to the fulfilment of the mandate of legal
vigilance of the representative of the Office of the Attorney-General assigned
to the police, the items of judicial evidence were not considered as a whole.
Nevertheless, a scrutiny of the material evidence available with which the preliminary
proceedings were conducted, complicated as they were on many occasions by the
passage of time, distances, the lack of resources, the lack of co-operation
on the part of relatives, friends, neighbours or in general those who had knowledge
of the facts in coming forward with their testimony or in participating in confrontation
formalities, identification parades and the adducing of items of judicial evidence
as a whole. An examination of the proceedings does not reveal any irregularity
or delay constituting a breach of discipline which would justify bringing charges,
pursuant to the opening of a formal disciplinary investigation, and accordingly
since the task set out in the order of 21 May 1986 issued by the office of the
attorney assigned to the police has been completed, t?! e files are returned
herewith."

8.1 In response to the Committee's request for more precise information about
the progress of investigations concerning the disappearance of the Sanjuán brothers,
the State party indicated by note of 22 January 1987 that the case of the Sanjuán
brothers (file No. 45317)was under review and that a statement of charges against
members of the police force could follow. By letter of 27 January 1989 the Colombian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Committee that a criminal investigation
is being conducted by Court 34 of the Criminal Bench of Bogotá:

"In these criminal proceedings, the Ninth Criminal Investigation Judge
of Bogota, who initially heard the case, on 2 May 1983, admitted an application
for related civil proceedings brought by the relatives of the victims. Such
proceedings are established in Colombian criminal legislation for compensation,
in the event that the acts reported a:-e confirmed for the damages incurred,
both materially and morally. Further, they offer the injured parties or their
representatives an opportunity on requesting evidence in order to ascertain
the truth about the offence, its perpetrators and accessories, their criminal
liability and the nature and extent of the damages incurred as well as many
other activities granted to them by the law, such as the filing of remedies.
In the case of the Sanjuán Arévalo brothers, the records show that their representatives
have not made effective use of that right and have confined themselves to requesting
copies of the proceedings, without really moving matters forward.

Because of the alleged involvement of members of the national police force,
the military criminal proceedings were expedited by the Inspector-General of
Police, the judge of the court of first instance, who, on 12 March 1987 qualified
the pre-trial proceedings by dismissing the case against the officers, non-commissioned
officers and members of the police alleged to be implicated. The decision was
taken on the ground that the requirements of article 539 of the Code of Military
Criminal Justice are not satisfied, i. e. full proof of corpus delicti or the
existence of a convincing statement offering solid grounds fur credibility or
serious evidence identifying the accused as the principals or accomplices of
the act under investigation . . .

This decision by the judge of the court of first instance was transmitted to
the Military Superior Court which confirmed it in toto."

8.2 With regard to the disciplinary investigations, the State party adds that
the Attorney-General "has reactivated the proceedings and accordingly appointed
a special commission by an order dated 8 November 1988, comprising two co-ordinating
lawyers of the Judicial Police and two technical investigators to continue to
investigate the events that led to the disappearance of the Sanjuán Arévalo
brothers. Having completed their mission, the appointed officials submitted
on 27 November 1988 the relevant evaluation report suggesting the opening of
a disciplinary investigation against the chief of the DIPEC (the former Intelligence
Corps of the National Police), the chief of the Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence
Section of the DIPEC, the chief of the Judicial Police of the DIPEC, and the
non-commissioned officers and members of the National Police Force who acted
on the orders of the aforementioned officers. The Office of the Attorney-General,
on the basis of the evaluation report, ordered by decree of 19 December 1988
the proceedings to be referred to the Office of the Attorney-General assigned
to the National Police so that a formal disciplinary investigation may be opened
against the aforementioned officers and non-commissioned officers."

8.3 The State party further observes that since the investigations are still
continuing and the applicable judicial procedures are pending, domestic remedies
have not been exhausted.

9. No further submissions have been received from the State party or from the
author of the communication.

10. The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in
the light of all written information made available to it by the parties, as
provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. In adopting its
views, the Committee stresses that it is not making any finding on the guilt
or innocence of the Colombian officials who are currently under investigation
for possible involvement in the disappearance of the Sanjuán brothers. The Committee
limits itself to expressing its views on the question whether any of the Covenant
rights of the Sanjuán brothers have been violated by the State party, in particular
articles 6 and 9. In this connection the Committee refers to its general comment
6 (16)concerning article 6 of the Covenant, which provides inter alia that States
parties should take specific and effective measures to prevent the disappearance
of individuals and establish facilities and procedures to investigate thoroughly,
by an appropriate impartial body, cases of missing and disappeared persons in
circumstances which may involve a violation of the right to life. The Committee
has duly noted the State party's submissions concerning the investigations carried
out hitherto in this case.

11. The Human Rights Committee notes that the parents of the Sanjuán brothers
received indications that their sons had been arrested by agents of the "F2".
The Committee further notes that in none of the investigations ordered by the
Government has it been suggested that the disappearance of the Sanjuán brothers
was caused by persons other than Government officials. In all these circumstances,
therefore, the Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, finds
that the right to life enshrined in article 6 of the Covenant and the right
to liberty and security of the person laid down in article 9 of the Covenant
have not been effectively protected by the State of Colombia.

12. The Committee takes this opportunity to indicate that it would welcome
information on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of
the Committee's views and, in particular, invites the State party to inform
the Committee of further developments in the investigation of the disappearance
of the Sanjuán brothers.